Legal Opinion · Dissent

Snetsinger v. Montana University System

Montana Supreme Court

Decided December 30, 2004No. 03-238Published

1DissentJustice Rice

¶112 I respectfully dissent. The Court fails to reference or properly apply the statutes and case law, thereby radically altering common law marriage in Montana, and failing to honor the reliance that many couples place in the law. I will begin with the Court’s opinion, then turn to the claims pled by the Appellants in the District Court, and conclude with a response to the concurrence.

¶113 Before turning to the legal analysis, two preliminary points must be made. First, the Court’s opinion does not address the issues which were pled by the Appellants. No part of the rationale upon which the…

2Cases cited32 opinions

  1. Maynard v. HillSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
  2. Unified Industries, Inc. v. EasleyMontana Supreme Court · 1998
  3. State v. MartinezMontana Supreme Court · 2003
  4. Alphonso Marcus v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, U. S. Department of LaborCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1976
  5. State v. HeathMontana Supreme Court · 2004

27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API